“The perception is … there seems to be a targeting of young Muslims and an almost threatening attitude by some law enforcement agents with respect to how they question or interact with these people,” president Zaahir Edries told a hearing in Canberra on Monday.

“Accurate or not, it’s something that exists.”

The volunteer organisation said that with such laws, and the rise of groups like Reclaim Australia, the Muslim community was deeply concerned about the growing social divide in Australia.

Recent comments by former prime minister Tony Abbott about Islam added to that feeling, it noted.

But Cameron Gifford from the Attorney-General’s Department said the laws were developed to apply to everyone.

“And that is the point we’re at pains to make every single time we engage with the community, to make sure that’s very well understood,” he said.

Mr Gifford conceded there had been no formal consultation with the community before the laws were drafted, but offered to review Mr Edries’ evidence and address any concerns.

“All these legislative tranches that we’ve seen unfold over the course of the last 18 to 24 months really do indicate there’s always room for improvement,” he said.

Assistant Commissioner Neil Gaughan said the Australian Federal Police regularly engaged with Muslim leaders, including a “full and frank” discussion about the purpose of these laws specifically.

“I think we agreed to disagree on some points, but the fact of the matter is there is open dialogue and they certainly have my number,” he said.

The bill at the centre of the joint parliamentary committee on intelligence and security’s inquiry contains several changes to counter-terrorism legislation.

They include allowing a control order to be imposed on children as young as 14, instead of 16, enhanced monitoring powers and a new offence of advocating genocide.

The Law Council of Australia and Australian Human Rights Commission want better safeguards to protect children.

Both are urging for changes to ensure the child’s best interests are given primary consideration by the courts when determining if a control order should be applied.

The Law Council also warned that the revised test for granting a preventative detention order could be subject to legal challenge and has suggested a change to some of the wording.